Madhya Pradesh Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Umashankar Usrete S/O Shri Haridas Usrete Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3270; 2008(4)MPHT393
ORDERK.K. Lahoti, J.1. This petition is directed against the order-dated 30.6.2001 in Criminal Revision No. 44/2000 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni by which the order passed by the appellate Authority annexure P/2 dated 23.6.2000 was affirmed.2. The learned Counsel submitted that the competent authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner in reply explained that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that all reasonable and necessary precautions were taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of any forest offence. The competent authority vide order 23.7.1999 Annexure P/1 after appreciating the evidence produced before him found that the forest produce was transported without his knowledge and connivance and he had taken all the precautions for use of the said vehicle in the forest offence. The order passed by the competent authority Annexure P/1 was challenged by the Range Officer, Kanhiwada before the Conservat...
Mangilal and anr. and Sangram Singh Yadav and anr. Vs. State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT286
ORDERB.M. Gupta, J.1. Although both the petitions have been filed by different petitioners impugning the different orders, yet both are arising out of one case, hence, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Vide M.Cr.C. No. 4256/05 order dated 13th July, 2004 and vide M.Cr.C. No. 4400/05 order dated 30th August, 2005 passed by the JMFC, Mungawali in criminal case No. 111/04 have been impugned, by which cognizance under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC/ 302/34, 201/34 and 120B of IPC has been taken against the petitioners while applying the provisions of Section 190 of Cr.P.C.3A. The factual matrix in brief, being necessary to be known, is that with regard to the death of Kallu @ Balkishan S/o Babulal Jatav merg No. 1/03 was registered at police Station, Bahadurpur, Distt. Guna. After conducting enquiry and coming to the conclusion that the mode of death is homicidal, FIR crime No. 1/03 was registered against unknown persons under Section 302/201 of IPC at...
Jeevan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT126
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. Apprehending the determination/termination of the leases granted to the petitioners Newspapers in view of judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 9-12-2005 directing that the leases granted by Development Authorities constituted under Section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1973') at concessional rates to the newspapers against Rules 19 and 20 are void and are quashed, the petitioners have rushed to this Court to seek a direction to the respondent (Indore Development Authority) not to proceed to determine the lease in the light of the said judgment of this Court.2. These cases relate to the allotment of land to the Newspapers on the hypothesis that the Newspapers were entitled to such allotment being Educational Institution and the land was designated in the Master Plan for the educational purposes. One Vijay Kumar Tiwari filed the...
Rajneesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. K.P. Enterprises and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT405
ORDER1. The appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') aggrieved by order dated 22-8-2005 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Satna in Case No. 30/2001 WC Act Non Fatal.2. It is not in dispute that claimant Rajneesh Kumar Dwivedi was driving Jeep (MP-19/2616), while he was taking the jeep to garage, the steering of the Jeep became free and there was failure of brakes due to that jeep turned turtle as a result thereof the claimant sustained injuries. He was referred to neurologist from Satna to Jabalpur. Salary of the claimant was Rs. 2,000 per month, beside Rs. 15 used to be paid to him byway of allowance, he has become permanently mentally disabled due to the injuries. The owner in the reply contended that jeep was not owned by M/s. K.P. Enterprises or Kamal Transport, claimant was not employed as driver by them, thus, they were not liable.3. The insurer in the reply denied the liab...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ101
P.K. Jaiswal, J.1. Appellant by Mr. R.V. Sharma, Advocate. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by Mr. Mahesh Goyal, Advocate. Heard on admission.2. This appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') challenging the award dated 16.5.2003, passed in Claim Case No. 51 of 2002, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant, respondent No. 1 and also directed the appellant insurance company to indemnify the insured. Other findings pertaining to the involvement of vehicle and terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the date of insurance of the offending vehicle is not under challenge.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in not exonerating the insurance company in indemnifying the insured. He submitted that as per Section 2(47) and Section 3 of the Act, the driver, respondent No. 2, was not having valid driving licence to drive Tata 407 vehicle which is r...
Bane Singh and anr. Vs. Santosh Giri and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ898
A.M. Sapre, J.1. This is an appeal filed by owner and driver of offending vehicle, NA1/2, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called 'the Act') against an award dated 20.4.2004 passed by Third Additional Member, M.A.C.T., Dewas in Claim Case No. 86 of 2003. By impugned award, Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of claimants and awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,26,626 with interest to claimants for the death of one Jagdish Giri. However, while passing the impugned award, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company, NA3, from the liability arising out of accident. It is against this award, the owner and driver, NA1/2 have felt aggrieved and have accordingly filed this appeal. So far as claimants, R1 to R3, are concerned, they have filed the cross-objection (M.C.P. No. 2883 of 2004) dated 25.11.2004 under Order 41, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to claimants, R1 to R3, what isawarde...
Satyanarayan Vs. Rameshwar and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1467
N.K. Mody, J.1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 30.4.2007 passed by Twelfth Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 137 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant on account of injuries sustained by him in motor accident was allowed and a sum of Rs. 48,430 was awarded and respondent No. 2 was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 13.4.2005 appellant was going on a motorbike bearing registration No. MP 09-LG 3229 as pillion rider. It was alleged that said motorbike was owned and driven by respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2. It was alleged that said motorbike met with accident with unknown motorbike, with the result appellant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula in right leg. Appellant was hospitalised at Verma Union Hospital from 13.4.2005 to 29.4.2005 where appellant was operated and rod was inserted. Medical evidence was adduced ac...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Bangre and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MPHT414
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Regard being had to the similarity of facts and identicalness of the question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions it was heard analogously and is disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in W.P. No. 11209/2007 are exposited hereunder:2. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the Union of India and its functionaries have called in question the legal acceptability and substantiality of the order dated 3-7-2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 1118/2005. The facts which are imperative to be exposited are that an advertisement was published in the Employment News dated 16-1-2004 for filling up of the posts of Durwans in the Ordnance Factory, Kharaaria. After appearing in the written test and qualifying in the same an offer for appointment was made to certain candidates and they we...
Aggyaram and Co. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Works Deptt. and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR165(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner assails the order dated 5-4-2000 passed by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in reference Case No. 44/99 dismissing the application as barred by limitation.2. The petitioner/Contractor was given a work for construction of Government Higher Secondary School building at Shamshabad. The date of completion of the work was 17-2-89, though the petitioner was allowed to complete the work by 11-5-90 by letter dated 30-4-90 of the Superintending Engineer. The contract was terminated on 23-3-90. The remaining work was given to other agency. Notices were served on 22-1-93 and on 16-6-94.3. The petitioner referred the quantified claims to the Superintending Engineer on 25-7-94 and he rejected the reference on 15-1-99. The petitioner preferred the reference case before the Arbitration Tribunal on 15-3-99 and during the pendency of the reference case, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief-Engineer on 14-6-99. No decision was taken by the Chief ...
Smt. Mithilesh Kumari W/O Padam Singh Yadav Vs. Pashu Chkikitsa Sahaya ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MPHT346
ORDERA.K. Shrivastava, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal which he filed has also been dismissed by the first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree, has filed this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree of two Courts below and praying to decree the suit.2. In brief, the case of plaintiff/appellant as borne out from his plaint is that State of Madhya Pradesh is his tenant and the suit accommodation was taken to run Veterinary Hospital in the suit premises. Earlier the rate of rent was Rs.500/-per month, however, later on, the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs.550/-per month.3. The husband of the plaintiff has retired from Government service and is sitting idle. Plaintiff's son Surendra Singh having age of 32 years has already completed his studies and is unemployed. The suit accommodation is required bona fidely by plaintiff and her son Surendra Singh to start the business of grain in which her husband would also assis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »